Fact: John Kerry did not vote for the Iraqi war

[dolstein]

He voted for a resolution that gave Bush the authority to send U.S. troops into Iraq without UN approval. The decision to send troops into Iraq was Bush's and Bush's alone.

The worst you can say about Kerry is that he's a bad judge of character. And many here do blame Kerry and others in the Senate for approving the McCain-Lieberman resolution and leaving the decision to go to war entirely up to Bush. However, I need to point out that the alternative resolution, sponsored by Biden and Lugar, would also have allowed Bush to send troops into Iraq without further Congressional action.

Finally, I would like to point out that one of the arguments made in support of the McCain-Lieberman resolution -- indeed, Lieberman himself made this argument -- was that the best way to avoid war was to send a very clear signal to the UN that the US was prepared to act alone if the UN refused to take forceful action against Iraq. And the fact is, after passage of the McCain-Lieberman resolution, the Bush administration did go to the UN and the UN did restart the inspections process.

Unfortunately, this explanation is too large to fit on a bumper sticker. So instead, all we hear are people on both the left and the right repeating ad nauseum that Kerry voted for the war.

(Personally, I'm sure that if I had been in Kerry's position, I would have voted for the McCain-Lieberman resolution too. I certainly supported it at the time, and believe that a strong stand was needed in order to get the UN to move on the inspections front.)

[noahmijo]

1. This is what I've been saying all along

[Dr Fate]

2. I support Kerry and I understand his vote...

...and I am not a single issue voter anyway.

Most DUers seem to forget the media & how they would have crucified Kerry had even a scrap of WMDs or 9/11 connections been found.

[RafterMan]

30. Most DUers seem to forget...

While others forget that not a scrap of WMDs or 9/11 connections have been found.

To march us into such a disaster on the basis of political expediency might be worse than doing so on the basis of incorrect assumptions.

[Dr Fate]

34. Right- so vote for Bush or write in Nader or Voo-Doo Man...

Or stay at home.

If you had to bet your entire career & the future of the balance of power on whether "somthing" would be found & exploited by the media, well I doubt you could even fathom that decision.

I'm an active Democrat, and I work to insert my values into the Democratic party.

Hopefully the people that care about this country will pull through for you and get some one in the Whitehouse who will represent many (as opposed to NONE) of our views...

[RafterMan]

35. Voo-Doo Man '04

Does the fact that you're going to vote Democratic mean you have to invent fatuous excuses for pro-war votes?

I don't get why people just can't admit it was the wrong thing to do.

[Dr Fate]

36. It was wrong.

It was wrong. that is why I supported Clark in the primaries and I support him as VP.

It was wrong, but I also realize that Kerry made a political bet- I was not 100% that "somthing" would not be found & exploited- hell, I'm still not sure "somthing" wont be found, say, round October.

Now is not the time to throw out the baby with the bath water- we need to get some other people in power who represent at least some of our views.

[RafterMan]

39. Thank you.

I accept your compromise vote for Kerry -- I will likely make it myself.

I, too, think many Democrats made a political bet with their IWR votes -- but I don't accept that. Here is the problem -- it implicitly accepts that if WMD are found, then the war was justified. I believed (as did Clark) that there were WMD *but their presence did not constitute a significant threat to America*.

If Americans cannot be brought to accept that little bit of insecurity in the world, we doom ourselves to perpetual war. The world will always be at least that insecure -- it is national suicide to lower the bar so greatly.

If Kerry doesn't draw the line somewhere, he will be powerless against the wave of fearmongering brought on by the next Saddam Hussein. If he stays a prisoner of his vote now, how will he break free?

Read this commentary by Josh Marshall on his interview with Clark to see how it will be done:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002044.php

If Kerry can't clearly communicate the true costs of war to the American people, I'm afraid yours is the vote that will be wasted.

[bigbillhaywood]

3. I just signed a blank check for this guy I know

The check was supposed to be used only as a last resort if he did not draw unemployment. The guy I gave it to is a known asshole. Well, he didn't wait for unemployment's decision, and filled out the check for several thousand dollars and cashed it. Now I'm broke-- not just me but my entire family. It's all that other guy's fault. I should shoulder no blame for this debacle.

Of course, there is a flaw in my analogy. Thousands have not died as a result of my misjudgment.

[wtmusic]

5. *snarf*

and I just gave a stone-cold drunk the keys to my car :thumbsup:

[sybylla]

7. Yeah, reminds me of the mean of "is" debate with all this parsing

and justification of every Kerry action and word. I haven't met a perfect candidate yet. Why do so many people think they have to make a god out of Kerry before they can vote for him?

He made a mistake. So did a lot of fence straddling centrist Dems. Kerry's the nominee. It's time to move on - in honesty, not denial.

[bigbillhaywood]

15. Exactly!

He made a mistake, let's move on. This contortionist (to borrow from another poster) defense of Kerry's vote on the war is ridiculous. The tendency of some Party loyalists to elevate their candidate to perfection borders on idol worship. Kerry's fucked up many things. I don't really want him to be President, but I want Bush less. It will not be love of Kerry which wins him the election, but hatred of Bush.

[JI7]

8. so nobody should have supported going into Afghanistan either

after all, it's about whether one can trust bush rather than the content of the actual bill voted on and holding bush accountable on whether he follows it or not.

[jpgray]

12. So you should go to jail, and your friend should get more blank checks?

That seems to be what you are proposing. Creating an environment where a crime can happen is not as bad as committing the crime, despite the attempts of some of our contortionists here to make it appear so. :D

[LoZoccolo]

17. Saddam Hussein was being uncooperative.

I supported the IWR because I thought we needed that kind of brinksmanship to get them to cooperate, and I don't blame John Kerry for doing so either.

[bigbillhaywood]

20. Disclaimer: Saddam was an evil dictator

So the US and UN Security Council are the only nations allowed to have WMDs? Oh, and South Africa and Israel. How does that work exactly?

[LoZoccolo]

32. He agreed not to have them and to inspections.

That's how it works.

[bigbillhaywood]

37. What are the inspections for?

To see if they have WMDs right? Why can't they have them? Why can the US? How come inspectors aren't combing over US weapons programs? What about Israel? They don't allow inspectors-- I don't see the US putting any pressure on them to submit to inspections. Then of course, there is the small matter of the US aiding Saddam's WMD programs in the 80s. But let's just forget all that-- it's ancient history. The US is always right. God Bless America.

[LoZoccolo]

40. I told you why they can't have them.

It was part of the deal that allowed him to keep control of his country.

[bigbillhaywood]

58. United We Stand

[bigbillhaywood]

60. Power of Pride

[bigbillhaywood]

61. Proud to be an American

[LoZoccolo]

41. And you already knew it.

One, because it was in my message and two, because otherwise you wouldn't be changing the subject.

[bigbillhaywood]

57. God Bless America. nt

[bigbillhaywood]

59. America First

[LoZoccolo]

67. What.

[LoZoccolo]

68. Fucking.

[LoZoccolo]

69. Ever.

[bigbillhaywood]

62. America's "Special Relationship" With Israel

Land of the Free
Freedom Isn't Free
Land of Opportunity
Cradle of Liberty

[no name no slogan]

78. Saddam DID NOT kick out the inspectors, Clinton recalled them

Bill Clinton recalled UNSCOMM from Iraq because the US/UK coalition was planning on making strategic air strikes across the country. The inspectors left on the orders of Clinton and Blair, NOT Saddam.

Saddam was being "uncooperative" with the UNSCOMM team for a VERY good reason: it was stacked with US and UK spies. Part of the UN ceasefire agreement stated that the UN team was to be staffed by inspectors who WERE NOT part of the intelligence agencies of the allies.

However, the US violated this part of the rule: hence all the inspections to Saddam's palaces, where they poured over non-military and non-industrial targets with a fine-tooth comb, even inspecting a refrigerator for signs of bioweapons.

Saddam DID fulfill his part of the agreement-- he DID allow weapons inspectors to do their "jobs". It was the US and its allies that broke the rules by putting spies on the UNSCOMM team.

[no name no slogan]

42. Saddam was NOT being uncooperative-- go reread history

(but first, the standard disclaimer: SADDAM == EEEVIL, and not a nice guy, either.)

Saddam ALLOWED the inspectors in to do their jobs. They were allowed to inspect every place that was mandated by the UN resolution that 'ended' Desert Storm in 1991. Also, the UN inspectors were NOT kicked out of Iraq in 1998-- they were withdrawn by Clinton in anticipation of a US/UK air attack, and were not returned after it.

Also of note, Saddam DID restrict the inspectors from certain places in the country which were not of strategic importance, i.e. personal residences. He believed (rightfully, it turned out later) the the UNSCOMM team was stacked with US spies-- a fact later admitted to by the US government, and also against the UN resolution that mandated the inspection teams as well.

Saddam let the inspectors do their work at the sites they were allowed to inspect. However, he blocked them from non-military sites and sites not mentioned in the original cease-fire agreement-- which was completely within the rights of Iraq and within the confines of international law.

Saddam was more 'cooperative' than the US has been with many recent UN resolutions. If only the US had chosen to cooperate with the UN, we may not have had the Contras, the death squads in El Salvador, or even the ongoing I/P conflict.

[Larkspur]

45. The inspectors were in Iraq BEFORE the IWR vote

so that argument has no legs to support it. And Scott Ritter told Kerry that Iraq had no WMD's. Ritter's team destroyed 97% of Hussein's WMD's before Clinton pulled them out and the remaining decomposed because the quality of Saddam's WMD's were very poor. A shelf-life of 2 year max for Saddam's poison gasses.

[Gore1FL]

71. yuo talking from 91-98???

The latest round of inspections came after the UN resolution in 2002, which came after the vote.

[no name no slogan]

77. Ritter said in 1998, 97% were destroyed

He also added that, due to the shelf life of the toxins he supposedly had, it was damn near impossible to "weaponize" them, because they had lost their effectiveness.

Scott Ritter also said that it was entirely possible that the "missing" 3% were already destroyed, but there was no record of them, due to the confusion following Desert Storm. Either way, if this "stockpile" existed, it posed NO THREAT to anybody. Iraq didn't even have a vehicle to deliver the weapons it could make, as they had all been destroyed as part of the inspections process.

Either way, Iraq posed absolutely NO THREAT to any other nation, least of all the most powerful one on the planet. Saddam was a paper tiger, pumped up by the NeoCons as the next Adolph Hitler, because they needed an excuse to justify the massive military buildup their patron corporations wanted and needed.

How was it possible that 20 million people around the world (who were out in the streets before the war started) somehow had access to this information, while a sitting United States senator did not?

It truly boggles the mind.

[ArkDem]

4. People just don't understand nuance.

[wtmusic]

6. OK how about this: he abdicated his responsibility to check GWB's power

does that sound better? :eyes:

[dolstein]

10. How exactly would Kerry have "checked" GWB's power?

I just pointed out that the alternative resolution, sponsored by Biden and Lugar, would also have allowed Bush to send troops into Iraq without further Congressional action.

And I'm sure you must have been aware of the fact that there were enough votes for the McCain-Lieberman resolution even without Kerry's vote. So it's not as if Kerry had the ability to check Bush's power and elected not to do so.

[RafterMan]

11. By voting "no"?

Why is that so hard to understand?

[dolstein]

16. And why is it so hard for you to understand

that the Senate alternative to the McCain-Lieberman resolution was the Biden-Lugar administration, which would also have allowed Bush to send troops to Iraq without further Congressional action?

And why is it so hard for you to understand that the Bush administration didn't think it needed ANY resolution from Congress before sending troops into Iraq? They claimed to have all the authority they needed based on the original Gulf War resolution and several UN resolutions.

So let's look at the options:

1. Vote for McCain-Lieberman -- troops go to Iraq
2. Vote for Biden-Lugar -- troops still go to Iraq
3. Vote for neither -- troops still go to Iraq, because (a) McCain-Lieberman would have passed anyway, (b) even if it didn't, Biden-Lugar would have passed, and the end result would have been the same and (c) even if, through some miracle, no resolution passed, the administration was prepared to act without a resolution.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

25. Yet if he had voted against it...

Right now he could stand before the cameras and point out that Bush was wrong and that he failed in the area that Repubs are supposedly better at, foreign policy and national security.

Now he has to temper everything he says, because "You voted for the Iraq war resolution" can be thrown in his face. He cannot blame Bush for the "error", because he made it too.

In other words, voting FOR it made not one whit of difference. Right wingers are not going to vote Kerry just because he agreed to go to war, but left wingers could seriously consider NOT voting for Kerry because he did.

That is the ONLY difference his vote made, but it could be a HUGE difference.

[dolstein]

29. The huge difference is Kerry wouldn't have been the nominee

Maybe if the primaries were being held right now a voted against the IRW would have been a plus, but back in January, February and March, primary voters didn't reward opposition to the resolution.

[dsc]

38. That makes his conduct much worse

This is why Kerry was close to my last choice. Whatever one could say about Lieberman and Gephardt, they apparently believed that the war was a good idea. Kerry merely voted for political convience. That makes him terribly jaded. I will vote for the man but this sure isn't the argument to make me feel good about doing so.

[RafterMan]

28. It's hard to understand

because it's so laughable.

His single vote couldn't have stopped it, so why not just go along?

Kerry/Lemming '04

[Larkspur]

46. Bill Todd gave the best argument against your logic

Your logic is the same that blm uses, so I'll post Bill Todd's rebuttal of blm on this topic for you.

Biden-Luger vs IWR Information
From DU poster Bill Todd in reply to blm on this topic can be found in full at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x504662#505777

<SNIP>
The Iraq War Resolution Which Passed vs. The Biden/Lugar Variant

Until shortly before the Senate vote on the Iraq War Resolution, Kerry opposed it, favoring the Biden/Lugar variant (as did Dean). However, when push came to shove, he supported it (and of course voted for it). Without wishing to go down too deep a rat-hole, the distinctions between the IWR and the Biden/Lugar variant have been so widely misrepresented that a quick review seems appropriate (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A3... for additional comments).

Biden/Lugar

"(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. - Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1)." ( http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resoluti... )

Note that since no such U.N. authorization for use of force was ever obtained, Biden/Lugar would have forced Bush, before starting the war, to provide Congress with his determination "that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary" - a very specific assertion of need (clarified in the preceding section as "the exercise of individual or collective self-defense") for which he could later be held accountable and if appropriate impeached.


The Iraq War Resolution

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." (The complete text appears at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/politics/03HTEX.html?ex=1082520000&e... ; the first 1.5 pages are standard Congressional meaningless "Whereas..." embroidery.)

This resolution merely required Bush to assert that war was necessary to protect our 'national security' - itself a rather poorly-bounded concept - or to enforce "all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions", a sufficiently vague grab-bag to make later accountability comfortably nebulous. Furthermore, it conveniently ignores the fact that absent U.N. approval, the U.S. had no right under international law (nor under U.S. law, by virtue of the fact that we have ratified the U.N. charter as a treaty) to attack Iraq for any reason save self-defense against an imminent threat (a point that was not lost on Paul Wellstone at the time - see http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2100413.htm , right at the end).

Bush himself rejected the Biden/Lugar variant because he claimed it would 'tie his hands' ( http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200210/02/eng20021002_104296.shtml ) - and indeed at least to some degree it would have. The ACLU held that view as well ( http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html ). In any event, those who assert that Dean's support for Biden/Lugar was equivalent to Kerry's support for the IWR are simply wrong: Kerry's vote for the IWR supported the war in a way that Dean's support for Biden/Lugar would not have, and Kerry voiced no other real opposition at that time while Howard was increasingly critical.

- bill

[jpgray]

52. Biden/Lugar still would have led to war, but it was a better resolution

Biden/Lugar required a few more reports, and moreover limited the resolution to disarming Iraq. Now, Biden/Lugar would still have us where we are today, but if Bush were to invade Syria, he would have to seek another resolution whereas with IWR he wouldn't necessarily have to. THAT is the big problem with IWR, and the area where Biden/Lugar is clearly superior.

[Larkspur]

55. I don't think that Biden-Lugar would have us in this mess

because it would have required Bush to really prove his case, a case he couldn't back up with facts.

The reason the Democrats, like Biden, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, caved into Bush's IWR demands was because Israel wanted us to invade and turn Iraq into a vassel state so that they could safely spy on Iran, who is primed to become a nuclear power to rival Israel, and get us to launch military and covert strikes against Iran, like we did to Saddam. Israel was the only ally of ours that was gung-ho for us to invade Iraq. Israel is a case right now of "With friends like Israel, we don't need enemies."

[jpgray]

56. All it required over the IWR there was a written statement of the case

And then only when the UN resolution was not obtained (it was obtained). The same BS case Powell presented to the UN is easily typed up, I imagine, and it wouldn't have changed the votes either way. The media were convinced of the case (witness Scott Ritter's reception at the time), and so were the politicians. There is plenty of blame to hand out for voting for the IWR, but it those who voted for it are not deserving of the same blame for using the IWR to do what Bush has done. No one will convince me of that. Lieberman and Gephardt I am less happy with than Kerry, but I'm not happy with the Iraq stances of any of those Senators.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

9. What a crock...

He voted for a resolution that gave Bush the authority to send U.S. troops into Iraq without UN approval. The decision to send troops into Iraq was Bush's and Bush's alone.

Bush says "I want to go to war". Congress says "you have our authorisation to go to war", Bush says "I am going to war". THAT IS VOTING TO GO TO WAR.

You can spin it anyway you want but when you give authorisation for something to someone WHO CLEARLY WANTS TO DO IT, you are tacitly supporting what they want to do.

Finally, I would like to point out that one of the arguments made in support of the McCain-Lieberman resolution -- indeed, Lieberman himself made this argument -- was that the best way to avoid war was to send a very clear signal to the UN that the US was prepared to act alone if the UN refused to take forceful action against Iraq. And the fact is, after passage of the McCain-Lieberman resolution, the Bush administration did go to the UN and the UN did restart the inspections process.

Bollocks. The best way to avoid war is to force the UN to go to war? What a load of bullshit. As for the inspection process here is the TURE order of events:

1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.

11 October 2002: The US Senate follows the House of Representatives in authorising President Bush to use force against Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

That is right! The UN and Iraq agreed to new inpections WHICH HAD BEEN REJECTED BY BUSH TEN DAYS before the Iraq War resolution.

That was a CLEAR signal that Bush wanted WAR, and congress gave it to him by telling him he could ignore the UN.

Spinning bullshit does NOT help Kerry. If I could find these facts, so can Bush supporters.

Unfortunately, this explanation is too large to fit on a bumper sticker. So instead, all we hear are people on both the left and the right repeating ad nauseum that Kerry voted for the war.

He did. I have just shot down your "explanation" which only leaves the obvious - Kerry and the vast majority of Congress voted for the war.

Edit: minor sentence reordering to make it more clear

[dolstein]

13. You conveniently ignore a few facts

For instance, you ignore the fact that after passage of the McCain-Lieberman resolution, the Bush administration went back the UN and got the resolution it wanted -- UN Resolution 1441, which was passed on November 8. An informal agreement between Blix and Iraq wasn't an adequate substitute to a UN Security Council resolution.

You also ignore the fact that the Bush administration was perfectly willing to send troops into Iraq not only without UN authorization, but without Congressional authorization. The Bush administration believed it had all the authority it needed based on the original Gulf War resolution and several UN resolutions.

Many in Congress saw the McCain-Lieberman resolution as a way to get the Bush Administration to go back to the UN, which it had previously been unwililing to do. To suggest, as you do, that everyone who voted for that resolution actually wanted to send troops into Iraq is disingenous. And the fact is, members in Congress did extract a pledge from the administration to go to the UN, and the administration did in fact go back to the UN.

Finally, you fail to point out just what options were on the table that Kerry could have supported that would have prevented the Bush administration from sending troops into Iraq. You blame Kerry for failing to prevent the war, but you don't say what it is he could have done. What exactly would you propose that he do?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

23. Here are some interesting quotes from the Congressional Record

From October 9 2002 (the day before the resolution was passed):

In approaching the question of this resolution, I wish the timing
were different. I wish for the sake of the country we were not here now
at this moment. There are legitimate questions about that timing. But
none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying
realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact,
the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the
teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out.

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must
ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing
weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is
Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the
international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop
nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible
nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?
Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop
missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and
deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not
account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM
identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for
delivery of biological agents?

<SNIP>

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of
themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they
tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the
nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in
his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they
tell us about the future.

<SNIP>

Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in
material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging
the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance.
In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his
office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein
accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a
multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the
disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we
would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an
opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11.
They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The
events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist
threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable.

That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and
impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried
then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to
disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an
election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's
decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or
earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and
complicated the national debate and raised questions about the
credibility of their case.

So who do you think said this?

Kerry made it clear in his speech that he thought war against Iraq to "disarm" it was not only acceptable but necessary if he did not "disarm".

Of course, we KNOW Iraq did not have WMD, so how could he disarm? Kerry in this speech rattles off all of Bush's claims without doubting them at all. In fact he says the war should have come sooner, before or immediately after Sept 11.

Yes, he does say that the UN should be consulted - but ONLY as a means of justifying a war to "disarm" Iraq.

Here is is his closing statement:

So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make
it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons,
and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have
worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this
dictator.

You could almost wonder who he was talking about here - but in the end, they did allow Bush to ignore the United Nations.

Let me make this clear - Kerry NEVER said the war was wrong. All he said was The war was right but that the rightness of it had to be made clear to the world via the UN. If the UN did not then agree to go to war then Bush was authorised to go it alone.

[jpgray]

14. No, it is not--Congress did not decide to go to war, Bush did

It is not the same thing, and I don't understand the point of trying to argue an apple is an orange--they are two different things. The resolution didn't have to result in war at all--it brought in inspections, and had those inspections continued, we would not have gone to war, since no weapons would have been found. There WAS a right way to proceed with this resolution, even though it was a lousy bit of legislation. You can't hold Kerry and Congress responsible for going to war, though you can hold them responsible for exercising bad judgment by voting on a dodgy piece of legislation.

[RafterMan]

18. Exactly correct

The only mitigating factor for me is his cautionary speech against it, plus the fact that GWB is the president.

It disgusts me that people want to sweep it under the rug, and sign up a VP who was even more pro-war.

[jpgray]

19. Sweep it under the rug? We hash this out every week

Some weeks someone starts a 'DID YOU FORGET KERRY VOTED FOR WAR!?!?!' and some weeks someone starts 'KERRY DID NOT VOTE FOR WAR!!!'

It's clear to me that one who creates an environment where a crime is likely to occur is not as guilty as the one who commits the crime itself. War was inevitable with Bush, but it was not inevitable based solely on the resolution.

[RafterMan]

22. Yes, and every time it comes up

people twist themselves into unnatural contortions to try to prove that the IWR was not really a vote for war.

Nobody is arguing that the accessory is "as guilty as" the perp -- but pretending the vote was not a vote for war is absurd, unless the argument is that it was a vote for political convenience.

[lojasmo]

21. the worst that can be said?!?!

Hmm. "Kerry is a fool, I knew what the BFEE was up to before the resolution"
or "Kerry betrayed his own conscience and his constituents to remain electable in his run for the oval office"

Okay, now that that's out of the way, it's fair to say that Kerry didn't use due diligence when deciding on his vote for the war resolution. It was poor stewardship to say the least.

I'm going to vote for him, and it's a philosophical debate, folks. All flamers can kindly keep it on the forum so your insults and vitreol can remain public.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. I was not happy with Kerry's vote then

I'm not happy with Kerry's vote now. I will happily vote for Kerry in 2004. Thank God for Howard Dean helping put some spine back into the National Democratic Party. I don't think Kerry would have invaded Iraq had he been President. I don't think Kerry will invade Syria when he becomes President. I will celebrate when Bush is forcibly retired by Kerry.

[lojasmo]

31. Right on Tom

All fine points. (except I'd say thanks Howard Dean for having a set)

[JVS]

24. Fact: Rick Santorum did not vote for the Iraq war.

He voted for a resolution that gave Bush the authority to send U.S. troops into Iraq without UN approval. The decision to send troops into Iraq was Bush's and Bush's alone.

The worst you can say about Santorum is that he's a bad judge of character (actually I could think of some more things, but that is another thread). And many here do blame Santorum and others in the Senate for approving the McCain-Lieberman resolution and leaving the decision to go to war entirely up to Bush. However, I need to point out that the alternative resolution, sponsored by Biden and Lugar, would also have allowed Bush to send troops into Iraq without further Congressional action.

Finally, I would like to point out that one of the arguments made in support of the McCain-Lieberman resolution -- indeed, Lieberman himself made this argument -- was that the best way to avoid war was to send a very clear signal to the UN that the US was prepared to act alone if the UN refused to take forceful action against Iraq. And the fact is, after passage of the McCain-Lieberman resolution, the Bush administration did go to the UN and the UN did restart the inspections process.

Unfortunately, this explanation is too large to fit on a bumper sticker. So instead, all we hear are people on both the left and the right repeating ad nauseum that Santorum voted for the war.

(Personally, I'm sure that if I had been in Santorum's position, I would have voted for the McCain-Lieberman resolution too. I certainly supported it at the time, and believe that a strong stand was needed in order to get the UN to move on the inspections front.)

:-)

[Rose Siding]

27. Excellent

They both assisted in creating the MYTH that Bush had strong leadership qualities, which is the monster that we're left to defeat.

[sleipnir]

33. I'm sorry, but only a fool would not realize it would lead to war.

Explain how 24 Senators voted against it, many stating my exact point, that the resolution was a veiled attempt to give * power to go to unlimited war against Iraq.

What's more disturbing than his vote is that Kerry actually trusted Bush and his Cabal after all the dirty tricks they'd pulled up until that point. I knew, and millions of others knew that the Resolution would be twisted into to launching an unprovoked war. It was clearly the angle the neo-cons were trying to take. Why did Kerry trust them to follow the Resolution?? Was he that out-of-touch, or was it pure politics? I don't know, but either way the answer to that question is not good, in my book.

I understand that the Resolution was going to pass and that it was the politically expedient thing for him to do at the time for his Presidency campaign. So, I'm not too hard on him, he's only a politician after all (which isn't a slam, it's just the hard truth of politics.)

[JohnKleeb]

43. I hate his vote for it but he wasnt one of those

ridiculing the UN and etc, he also pressed Bush for international support. A day or so before the Iowa primaries I read an NYT article in which Ted Kennedy said his and Kerry's vote meant the same, you may not trust me but I'd trust Kennedy.

[Larkspur]

44. Kerry has never said that the Iraq war was morally wrong

He has only criticized the tactics used by Bush, but has not blasted the war itself as immoral.

Kerry voted for IWR because it would help negate his 1991 vote against a war he should have supported and , like the pro-Israel Dem crowd, he wanted to make Iraq a vassel state for Israel. Ariel Sharon and the Likkudites strongly supported the US invasion of Iraq.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. Pick your President

Kerry or Bush. Then get back to organizing. We are past the Primaries where we got to fight for who we thought was the best Democrat possible, now Kerry is the Democrat with the nomination in hand. He is the only man left standing who can take down Bush.

I know supporters of third Party options don't see it that way, but I don't see a third Party as an option. Not for this Presidential Election. A case can be made for working to build a third Party, but that does not have to include taking actions likely to swing this election to Bush. In my State Senate district, a Green Party activist and member just got the Democratic Party nomination to run on the Democratic line. She's great, and now to a lot of people, she will be thought of as simply a Democrat running against a Republican. I know better and I couldn't be more pleased with her as a candidate.

Work for the future, but defeat Bush now.

[Larkspur]

48. I can vote for Kerry and piss on him at the same time

To me the Prez election is between a Disaster in Bush and the Unpalatable in Kerry. My vote for Kerry in November is a vote against Bush, not a vote for Kerry, whom I despise.

[WI_DEM]

50. well said

and thus far Kerry owes his standing in the election not so much because people are for him--look at Kerry's approval/disapproval ratings--they are shockingly low--but because Bush has been such a disaster. If Kerry wins it will be due to an anti-Bush vote.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. True enough I suppose

And I don't think there's much if any harm that can be done with general pissing done on a BB like ours. Not many apathetic voters come to a place like this. But out there in the real world, where half of the electorate fails to vote every election, where most of those non voters have Democratic sympathies, pissing about Kerry does no good at all. It contributes to people staying home on Election day.

[Larkspur]

53. When I talk about Kerry in public to strangers, I'm honest and

tell them that I don't like Kerry but that Bush is a disaster and has to go. Most agree with me. If I was dishonest and told these people that I like Kerry, they'd see through the falsehood and they'd either not vote at all or vote for Bush. Most people I meet honestly don't like Kerry but know Bush has screwed this nation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. I can see that

I at least try to put in a plug that Kerry has a fairly long and relatively good record on environmental issues. That is one area where I actually support Kerry with little or no reservations.

[WI_DEM]

49. well at least Kerry's collegue from Massachusetts Sen. Kennedy knew

the difference that a vote for this resolution--no matter what--was what Bush wanted so he could move in--Bush has wanted to go into Iraq since he was elected and was looking for a way in--those who voted for the resolution gave it to him and, as far as I'm concerned, share the blame for this fisasco which has killed, wounded, or mutilated thousands of people.

[ulysses]

63. if that's the criteria

then *no one* voted for the Iraq war. Did the thing just sort of happen when no one was looking?

[ulysses]

65. next question: if a bunch of regular old citizens

who voted for Nader in 2000 were supposed to realize the danger that Bush represented, and therefore vote for Gore, how is it that an intelligent Democratic United States Senator could believe anything other than that Bush would use the slightest go-ahead to launch an invasion?

[Exgeneral]

64. FACT: He isn't anti-war

He's had plenty of time to attack * on this , or state publicly that it's a bad idea. Or demand immediate withdrawal of our troops and those bloodsucking vulture war profiteers that view our kids as a profit center. In Fact, he's in favor of sending in MORE TROOPS.

Time's running out.

Think Iraq is going to be any prettier come October?

[no name no slogan]

66. On the Iraq war, there's not much difference between Kerry & Shrub

Both are advocating nearly identical plans now: both want a UN mandate to continue the occupation (under US control, of course); both support continued US control of the rebuilding and Iraqi assets. The both support a long-term US military presence in the region-- a military presence which, I might add, was one of the major reasons for Osama binLiner to attack the US on 9/11/2001.

The only real difference between their positions is that Kerry would have gone about the war differently than Dubya. Otherwise, it's just semantics.

Yeah, I'll vote for Kerry. I'm a Democrat, like it or not. But, like Clinton, I will mercilessly continue to ride his @$$ on this issue (and many, many others) throughout his presidency.

Given the popularity of F911 and the continuing state of affairs in Iraq (new flag or not), Kerry needs to get his sh!t together if he wants to get more than 45% of the vote this year. Otherwise, the anti-war vote is going elsewhere-- like it or not.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. I accept it as a very unfortunate political reality

If every dem senator had voted their conscience on the IWR it would've still passed and the GOP might have 60 instead of 51 seats in the senate.

[TexasSissy]

72. True. But he knew that war was a possibility. His mistake was trusting

the administration.

But these are fine points that the general public is too, well, distracted (to put it politely) to grasp. They will continue to think that he "voted for the IW."

[Guaranteed]

73. That excuse only works if Kerry didn't know that Bush was hell-bent

on starting a war.

And we all knew that.

[GeronimoSkull]

74. Awwww... that's precious

Did you make it up all by yourself?

[Gyre]

75. Yeah, whatever.

As far as I'm concerned he DID vote for the war by authorizing $87bln for operations there. WTF, do you think he thought Bushbaby was going to do with all that scratch?

The ONLY thing I see good about Kerry is he isn't Bushbaby. I was more than willing to believe that he was the firebrand when he got back from Vietnam but I haven't seen anything of that guy. A big dissapointment. It's like he's become a Stepford senator.:(

Gyre

[cletusvandamme]

76. ehhhhh

He voted to give Bush (a madman) the authority to make the decision. He is culpable. Kerry is a scumbag. Unfortunately, I have to vote for him because Nader doesn't stand a chance.